Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : DAYTRADING Fundamentals -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Mama Bear who wrote (13050)	5/22/2001 1:29:56 AM
From: WaveSeeker	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18137

I think I finally understand why marriage is an institution that masquerades for hell on earth. WS

To: Mama Bear who wrote (13050)	5/22/2001 6:21:02 PM
From: LPS5	Respond to of 18137

Not at all, Mama Barb. It has been my pleasure to edify you. What you call "arrogance" - as with "insistence" - is merely your attempt, bereft of evidence or references, to save some rapidly evaporating - and perhaps, at this point, entirely eroded - credibility. Now: as we take this off-thread, for future reference (as you look for links, etc., to PM me), this summary will suffice: ******** 1.Your statement: "...the apparent fact that all accounts at certain brokerages are coded automatically by SEC fiat as pattern daytrading account[s]...*" Message 15771231 (Also containing the request that I find links supporting such for you.) 2. My position (specifically, the bold print at the bottom): Message 15778764 3. My supporting links – as per your request - from the SEC, NASD, CyberSecuritiesLaw websites et al, as well as the NASD Rules and Procedures handbook. (The first post with the numerous links is complete with rhetorical questions addressing the various erroneous parts of your assertion.) Message 15799944 Message 15799961 This last one, with regard to your assertion that Arthur Levitt, former SEC Chairman, was referring to the Trilateral Commission when he, in a speech, referred to “the Commission.” Message 15804596 and, finally, further proof (above and beyond the existence of a “daytrading account approval” section in the NASD handbook, if that isn’t enough) that the determination of a daytrading account is done on the “same-as-regulators-require-or-stricter-than” basis – such as is done with certain margin policies, the NASDAQ Small Cap rule, etc.; and moreover, on an account-by-account basis (not “certain” broker-dealers): Your example of one firm that is classifying all its’ accounts as such can be called Exhibit A. Message 15796245 Exhibit B: This daytrading firm – allowing daytrading and non-daytrading* accounts. attain.com Think about it. ********** So, let’s take it here: siliconinvestor.com In the meantime, find another thread to infect. I hope to hear from you soon with links invalidating the regulatory links and references above. You’re very, very welcome. My warmest regards - and I mean that, seriously. :-) LPS5

To: Mama Bear who wrote (13050)	5/22/2001 7:10:55 PM
From: Eric P	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 18137

Barb/LPS5, I would suggest that you both are well intentioned and want to ensure that only accurate information is posted on the thread for everyone's benefit. However, I think that you've both inadvertently fallen into nitpicking with one another on the finer points of accuracy, with no one wanting to 'lose' by not having the last word. I know that each of you has provided value to the thread in the past, and are great ongoing assets for us all in terms of increasing the knowledge of the regulars and lurkers on this thread. However, specifically regarding the points repeated discussed in the recent heated discussions, let's please simply agree to disagree and move on to more productive topics. Please let me have the last word on this and not feel compelled to augment this post with one last jab. If you must make a few more points with one another, please do it via PM. In addition, if anyone feels compelled to criticize me for something in this post, please do it via PM to bring closure to this topic. I look forward to your continued and valued participation on the thread in the future. I hope this post is not taken wrongly by anyone, but feel that it reflects everyone's desires to end this unproductive discussion, including yours. Thanks, -Eric